[WikiEN-l] Copyright question

[Carcharoth]

Some more blogs (including the one I mentioned in the last post):

http://lawclanger.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-not-often-that-copyright-cases-get.html

http://www.technollama.co.uk/national-portrait-gallery-copyright-row

http://www.francisdavey.co.uk/2009/07/national-portrait-gallery-photographs.html

http://blog.frankwales.com/2009/07/20/for-the-public-good/

One point I want to pick up from that last one.

In the comments, the blog author says:

"Dover Books has built a business that includes reprinting
out-of-copyright music scores. I have several of their books, such as
a volume of Brahms’s symphonies. But anyone else is able to publish
this same material, and it’s perfectly legal to download those same
Brahms scores from the International Music Score Library Project. That
this is so hasn’t prevented Dover from being able to sustain their
business model."

That is an incorrect analogy.

The equivalents here would be:

*"Download PD images from Commons" vs "download those same Brahms
scores from the International Music Score Library Project"

*"Buy book from the NPG shop" vs buy "volume of Brahms’s symphonies"
from Dover Books

*"Download NPG images and upload to Commons" vs "walk into Dover Books
offices and copy the manuscripts of their books and then print your
own copies of the books and give them away for free"

*"Pay tens of thousands of pounds for professional scans of NPG
pictures" vs "pay professional orchestra to perform Brahms's
symphonies and record them and sell the result

To my mind, the difference between a bog-standard point-and-click
photograph of a work of art and a detailed, archival scan, done in
such detail, and with care and due attention to lighting to capture
the essence of the work of art, is the difference between a mere copy
of a musical score, and the performance of that score by an orchestra.

Admittedly, the analogy might be being stretched to breaking point here.

But the blogs are good, so do read those!

Carcharoth